User talk:Priyanath/Archive 3

Indian collaboration of the week news
As mentioned in Wikiproject India newsletter of March 2007, the weekly collaboration of the Indian wikiproject has fallen from its once high feats. This message is to request the users to visit the collaboration page and help rejuvenate it.

The present collaboration of the week is Religion in India. Please go through the talk page of the article to see the proposed changes in the article. Regards.--Dwaipayan (talk) 18:34, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

Hello
Hello, Priyanath, I've seen your edits on a number of articles on my watchlist and they seem fair and impartial. Would you mind peeking at what's going on at Gurumayi Chidvilasananda and Siddha Yoga. A couple of editors seem overly insistent on removing references to "Hindu" and "Hinduism" from these articles. More knowledgeable eyes wouldn't hurt. IPSOS (talk) 02:25, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

Inquiry regarding "neutrality" problem with edits to SRF and Yogananda pages
Hello,

I am curious as to what is disputed or non-neutral about Yogananda believing he was once William the Conqueror and William Shakespeare in former lives? It seems fairly factual and straight forward. It comes from the Self Realization Fellowship (SRF) materials already cited on the page. Also, what is disputed or non-neutral about the requirements placed on SRF members (such as mandatory meditation twice per day) and a signed statement of a lifetime loyalty to Yogananda?

I thought these pages were meant to be objective and transparent. It seems that not allowing individuals to post facts is inhibiting the usefulness and honesty of the pages, is it not?

Thank you. Vovere 01:58, 29 April 2007 (UTC)iro

Requests for arbitration/Hkelkar 2
Hello,

An Arbitration case involving you has been opened: Requests for arbitration/Hkelkar 2. Please add any evidence you may wish the arbitrators to consider to the evidence sub-page, Requests for arbitration/Hkelkar 2/Evidence. You may also contribute to the case on the workshop sub-page, Requests for arbitration/Hkelkar 2/Workshop.

On behalf of the Arbitration Committee, Newyorkbrad 02:43, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Please also note the arbitrators' comments here regarding scheduling matters. Newyorkbrad 02:43, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

Re: Vandalism to Rajarshi

 * You didn't hurt my sentiments, but I can imagine how alot of people could have found your vandalism pretty offensive. Best to put that kind of stuff somewhere other than Wikipedia. Cheers, &#2384; Priyanath talk 17:49, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

Please watchlist that page
I have replied on Pranayama and see that one of the editors who has been active there recently is doing the same sort of unsourced editing on pages such as Chakra and Kundalini. Please watch all of these pages and assist me in demanding that we raise the bar on article quality for all three of them. These New Age pages are poorly sourced and the editors often want to keep them that way. Buddhipriya 05:07, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

Need your advice
Priya, I created a page on wilipedia. The URL is: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hindu_primer They say my article is being considered for deletion. I do not know what to do about it. I do not even know why they want to delete it. Would you please send your advice if possible! Sabu030@aol.com


 * Sabu - you should read the message I posted on your user talkpage, and study all of the links there. It will show you how to edit Wikipedia so people don't delete everything that you write. Your article Hindu primer is considered Original Research and an essay. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia. Again, if you read the links I left on your user talkpage, User_talk:Sabu030, you'll learn all about these things. Good luck! &#2384; Priyanath talk 19:21, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

Discussion
A "good faith user" is trying to conflate Hinduism with Idolatry. Noting that Wikipedia's article of idolatry defines Idolatry as a sin, it gives the reader the implication that Hindus are sinners. However to reinvent the wheel, I invite you to a discussion on Murti puja and etc at Talk:Hinduism. Baka man  02:02, 27 May 2007 (UTC)
 * I've added a comment there, and also at User_talk:Dmcdevit about the good faith user and his edits. &#2384; Priyanath talk 02:47, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

Reply
Your intentions and comments do not live up to the facts of what's been happening and what needs to be done. I have no sympathy for ArbCom - they have a job to do, which they haven't done. I have a job to do and I don't mind putting my ass on the line to do it properly. When I asked them to guide me, they ignored me, so I have accordingly lost respect for them.

DaGizza had specific proof and specific reasons to research this issue quietly. What you suggest he should have done, I had actually done with the "PakHub" case - I brought it to attention to ANI, which in turn brought only "we can't do anything about this" and merely alerted the trolls. I agree with one thing - this RfAr was not necessary. It was forced because of Porpington's desire to un-block Baka and rescue his clique against consensus and without seeing any of the evidence (except Gizza's, which he forwarded to AMbroodEY). ArbCom is merely the tool of fate, which decrees only the ultimate triumph of NPOV, against all odds, even ArbCom :) Rama's arrow (just a sexy boy)  02:41, 30 May 2007 (UTC)


 * As for "this was not necessary" and of hurting "Hindu editors," need I remind you that your name was very prominent in the mailing list. You were not blocked, because you are not a disruptive editor - that is my "on-Wiki" evidence, which guided my hand in both your case and that of the others. Rama's arrow (just a sexy boy)  02:43, 30 May 2007 (UTC)


 * I believe that I understand your position, and I have no doubt of your good will and intentions. In spite of any disagreement with you, I have nothing but good will toward you, and feel the same from you. &#2384; Priyanath talk 02:58, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

Request to add updates on WP:HINDU
On the new-look WikiProject Hinduism page, there is a "Recently updated articles" section where updates and creations related to Hinduism can be listed which will bring its attention to other Hinduism editors. I encourage using it as an effective and efficient notification tool. Thank you GizzaDiscuss  &#169; 22:43, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

Recent remarks
I'm awfully sorry if I offended you, I certainly did not intend it as such. The phrase I was riffing on is one that was common among friends of mine at one point as a stereotypically filmi line. Hornplease 21:41, 13 July 2007 (UTC)
 * I actually chuckled at the line &mdash; a bit like 'go ahead, make my day'&mdash; but much more graphic and more trite at the same time. But in the context of our discussion, and based on previous encounters with you, I did take it as a serious riposte rather than a humorous aside. So thanks for the apology. Now I'm looking for a chance to use it, though here on Wikipedia it might be seen as a death threat, or at least uncivil. As far as Holi, I see it as less of a 'holy' festival than a fun one, so also there it was no real offense. &#2384; Priyanath talk 21:59, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

Seeking opinion from regular editors on reference pattern
References: Notes and citations section; change in reference and notes temporarily ceased; WP:FOOT says I am not doing wrong; Separate Notes and Citation sections

Opinion is sought from regular editors of the article Hinduism regarding the splitting of Notes and references section. This is a short gist of the discussions going on in the above mentioned talk links: Having a separate "Notes" (for explanatory remarks) and "Citations" (for direct citations), although permitted, is relatively rare in Wikipedia, and also in academic journals. The main rationale behind doing this is to distinguish a series of explanatory remarks from the series of citations (please see Rabindranath Tagore, Demosthenes for examples).

This sandbox gives a glimpse of how the article would look if we split the sections (the sandbox is under work, so may not be perfect). This link shows how the article looks with combined section. This may give an idea how it looked when I started working on references. I converted many references to Harvard format, apart from splitting the sections.

Opinion for regular editors are sought regarding the application of splitting of two section for this article. Please do so in Talk:Hinduism in the section Talk:Hinduism. Regards.--Dwaipayan (talk) 04:57, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

Image:Aumred.png listed for deletion
An image or media file that you uploaded or altered, Image:Aumred.png, has been listed at Images and media for deletion. Please see the to see why this is (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry), if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you. DoSiDo 14:52, 5 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Thanks, I added my comment. Perhaps you could take on the task of replacing the PNG with the SVG version on all the article pages? Some of the 200+ pages that have that file might be showing it because of various templates that have the image. I don't have the time to look into that, but I'm all in favor of the PNG version &mdash; as long you simply replace it in all the articles, rather than it being deleted from Wikipedia altogether. &#2384; Priyanath talk 15:16, 5 August 2007 (UTC)

Flags
Hello! Can I have a specific reason for not using flags on the page of Lata Mangeshkar? It is too much to read on the page you have indicated, regards, -- Shahid •  Talk 2 me  07:25, 10 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Hi, Rather than cutting and pasting it all here, you can go to the section at Don't overuse flags, and read the subsections "Don't emphasize nationality without good reason" and "Not for use in locations of birth and death". There is also a very relevant (to the article you mention) discussion by other editors of Indian bio articles at Wikipedia talk:Notice board for India-related topics. The title of that discussion should give you an idea of the confusion that's caused by inserting flag icons in places of birth/death, and one reason it is "strongly deprecated". &#2384; Priyanath talk 14:55, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

Radha-Krsna Temple
Hi Priyanath, the album is available online at prabhupadavani.org. Is it the 'Sri Gurvastakam' prayers that you are looking for? I'm not sure if this the new second-release version or the original which they have on the website? Hare Krishna :-) Gouranga(UK) 08:24, 12 August 2007 (UTC)


 * Looks like the same song was also on the B-Side on the main Radha-Krsna Temple single and is downloadable as an MP3 from here, although I havn't logged-in and tried it. Gouranga(UK) 11:04, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

Request for clarification
I was not sure about the intent of your comment on the talk page for Ganesha that: "You might even gain some compassion for the ongoing frustration expressed by Hindus here, which would be a good thing, in my opinion." I read this to mean that you feel that my actions have shown evidence of lack of compassion. If so, can you please give me more specific suggestions on what you feel I am doing that is insensitive? I have given some detail on the talk page there where I try to explain that I agree with the basic problem of cultural bias, I agree that some scholarship is poor, and I agree that sexualization is overdone. I also feel that I have tried hard as an editor to deal with all of these things, while at the same time complying with both Wikipedia policies and my own standards of intellectual honesty. With regard to the sexualization issue, I invite you to examine the edit histories for Kama Sutra, Tantra and Kundalini as examples of articles where I have worked as hard as any other edtior to present a more balanced picture of sexual content. Eventually I simply gave up on some of those articles. If you have criticism of my editing, please share it with me frankly so I may learn how to be more effective. Buddhipriya 01:14, 19 August 2007 (UTC)


 * I realize that I should have said understanding, rather than compassion - my apologies. I can't honestly speak for your compassion one way or the other. I very much understand why there was an emotional reaction by Redtigerxyz to using Courtright as a source for the Ganesha article. Courtright treats Ganesha in such a bizarre, un-academic, and ignorant way that Hindus naturally see him as an utterly unreliable source for anything about Ganesha. I do too (I'm talking real world here - of course Courtright still qualifies as a WP:RS). Courtright also treats Ganesha in such a disrespectful way (or blasphemous as some seem to think), that I can well understand the additional emotional, or even hysterical added charge to this issue.


 * To see Courtright's name on the Ganesha article as an expert on Ganesha is galling to Redtigerxyz, and I imagine to many Hindus who would come across that article. I understand that response, and think it should be obvious to others. For Redtigerxyz to ask if Courtright cites are neccessary "when alternate sources are possible" is extremely understandable to me, and I was surprised to see a lack of understanding by yourself and others, which may or may not be due to a lack of compassion.


 * As far as your editing, I never for a moment thought you were trying to sexualize Ganesha by using Courtright as a reference in the article. And I appreciate what you say you've done with those other articles. My comment only referred to what I see as the broader issue of two cultures colliding (Western academics who study Hinduism, and Hindus who practice it). If there were more understanding from both sides, there wouldn't be so many difficulties here on Wikipedia, in my opinion.


 * I don't have any criticism of your editing. If I had the time and interest to edit more, I would find alternate references to Courtright. Wikipedia should speak to a world-wide audience, and knowledgeable Hindus won't accept Courtright as a reliable source. But that's a matter of two editors with different styles, backgrounds, and understanding - it's not a criticism. If every editor here thought alike, it would be a pretty boring place, and nobody would learn anything. Thanks for enquiring with an open mind about what I meant. &#2384; Priyanath talk 04:47, 19 August 2007 (UTC)


 * Thank you for your clarifications. Have you actually read Courtright's book, by the way?  I am curious if your opinion that "Courtright treats Ganesha in such a bizarre, un-academic, and ignorant way" is based on your assessment of the book, or if you are relying on a review of the book as a whole, or if you are reacting only to the few sentences that have been extracted from it with the psychoanalytic remarks (which I agree are dubious).  Buddhipriya 05:09, 19 August 2007 (UTC)


 * I'm basing my opinion on excerpts - more than just the few quoted here, but still excerpts. That 'understanding' of Ganesha is so far off-base that it completely discredits Courtright, in my opinion. It's entirely made up, regarding Ganesha (in terms of the real world). If an academic wrote a book about Jesus in which he claimed Jesus was a space alien, it would discredit him as an expert on the subject, even if the rest of the book seemed like it might be legitimate. That's comparable to how I, and many other Hindus, view Courtright's projections on Ganesha.


 * I don't have an emotional response to such ignorance, but I understand those who do. I believe that Wikipedia should be written to a world-wide audience, and address the problem of using a source that many Hindus (in this case) view as unreliable. But this is not Wikipedia policy - it's my own personal view, and I well understand that. It's one of the reasons why I no longer edit, or even watchlist, any articles that are directly addressing Hinduism, Hindu deities, and Hindu rituals. I'll continue to work on articles that are tangential, but not directly addressing Hinduism. (I only jumped into the Ganesha discussion because Redtigerxyz copied my signature over there, an innocent mistake, I know).
 * p.s. I also assumed all along that you consider those psychoanalytic remarks to be dubious, and that your use of Courtright as a source was no personal endorsement of those views - though his inclusion in the article does imply endorsement of him as an expert on Ganesha. &#2384; Priyanath talk 15:28, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

Kama Sutra
Regarding our recent discussion about the Western obsession with sex, please examine the current edit war on Kama Sutra, where several months of article cleanup are being demolished by edit warrior User:Lara bran. Eventually I may just give up there as I did on Tantra. Buddhipriya 05:27, 20 August 2007 (UTC)
 * I well understand your frustration. Those are both articles I don't have enough knowledge about to edit intelligently (or enough time to research). I respect and appreciate your efforts in both cases. I have just involved myself in that same editor's attempts to add the duplicate (with abysmal english translations) Eight Limbs template. Cheers, &#2384; Priyanath talk 19:01, 20 August 2007 (UTC)
 * priyanath, thanks for reverting my works. if translations are abysmal then you are welcome to change. But that is NOT AT ALL a reason for reverting, please dont mention it as reason. Lara_bran 03:47, 21 August 2007 (UTC)
 * You're right. Even if the english in the template was correct, I would still have removed it because it exactly duplicated the template at the bottom of the page. &#2384; Priyanath talk 03:53, 21 August 2007 (UTC)
 * True, the template:yoga has only sanskrit terms, and for an english user, it is useless for navigation purpose. You know purpose of those templates is navigation, not advertisement "other yogas". I am revamping template:raja yoga, give me some time. Thanks. Lara_bran 05:09, 21 August 2007 (UTC)
 * I will remove it again. It duplicates the template at the bottom of the page. &#2384; Priyanath talk 14:17, 21 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Oh, lets see. Lara_bran 14:58, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

Please do not remove references in foot section as you did with kechari mudra. Thanks for expansion of article. Nice day. Lara_bran 15:15, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

Yoga poll
Hi! There's some discussion on whether using "asana", "yogasana" or "yoga asana" as the article title. If you are acquainted with the subject, you are invited to drop your opinion at Talk:Yogasana. Davin7 09:39, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

Thank you for your gift
It was kind of you to give me a barnstar, but I fear I did little to deserve it. Wikipedia is a difficult environment, and your efforts to support others are important. Buddhipriya 03:16, 14 September 2007 (UTC)
 * You deserved it. Helping to improve an article that is not your particular interest&mdash;but because someone asked for your knowledge and help&mdash;is selfless service that is sometimes hard to find here. It helps to make this difficult environment less so. Thanks, &#2384; Priyanath talk 04:42, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

Indian religions
Do something in the Indian Religions article. 2 guys are wreaking havoc there. I don't have the time to write 500 word essays in the talk page daily. If someone lends a helping hand, the article can be salvaged. Indian_Air_Force (IAF) 15:40, 21 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Ahhh, too many Tar Babies and too little time... &#2384; Priyanath talk 20:21, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

Sorry for the lack of signatures.
Sorry, I will remember to sign all entries from now on.--ॐJesucristo301 15:49, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

Mudra article
Did you notice this? I was under the impression the user had been banned. Buddhipriya 05:05, 24 September 2007 (UTC)
 * They (I use the plural, as in 'sockpuppets') were unblocked. You can see the discussion here. While 'Past Performance Does Not Guarantee Future Results', I wouldn't be absolutely stunned to see another block based on current performance. &#2384; Priyanath talk 16:13, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

Swami Sandeep Chaitanya
Request your valuable contribution for Wikifying the artcle on Swami Sandeep Chaitanya —Preceding unsigned comment added by Liberal Democrat (talk • contribs) 14:26, 29 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Thanks, but there are too many articles on Wikipedia and too little time in my life right now. &#2384; Priyanath talk 03:38, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

RfC for the Toda Image
I have filed an RfC for the Toda Image. Please add your comments to it on the Talk:India page. Regards,  Fowler&amp;fowler  «Talk»  16:16, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

Hi there
Hi Priyanath, In spite of my brusque tone every now and then, I am not against all your suggestions. I feel you are someone I can do business with. I think we can arrive at some compromise position. I am willing for three photographs provided a subsection on Folk and Tribal Culture (the so called "Little Tradition") is added as well. During the interim I feel that only the Taj image should remain. I am sure we could come up with a tolerable first draft in a week, so it won't be too long a wait. Right now, I feel that the culture section is big on the "Great Tradition," and has nothing to say about the "Little Tradition." Even the BJP era high-school chapter ("Culture in India") that I added to the Talk:India page has more complexity and methodology at work than the India page culture section, or indeed the WP page Culture of India

Contrary to what people might think, I am not attached to the Toda picture per se, but I am attached to the idea of diversity, to the protection of minorities, to expressing complexity in terms of broad themes (in any description of culture), and to quality pictures. The first two are also the broad principles of the Indian constitution. As for your suggestion about having more religion, I feel that it is a tricky thing to add at this time. The article and especially the culture section needs to be stabilized first. Also, for a country that is still 67% rural (according to the 2001 Census), many other sections need to have discussions of rural issues: Demographics, Economy, Politics. I think those issues are more important than having a section or even a subsection on Religion, which is again a "Great Tradition" issue (for the most part). Anyway, I will write something in the talk page soon. Regards,  Fowler&amp;fowler  «Talk»  08:06, 9 October 2007 (UTC)


 * I'm all for an image representing the diversity and complexity of India that includes the tribals/minorities. I haven't heard any one opposed to that idea. If there's a representative image in the appropriate context, that would end all of this wasted time. I think an example of folk art, dance, or festival would be a much more lively and attractive image. I'm against diluting the images down to just the taj image, even temporarily. It's actually one of the least representative images there is, since it doesn't 'represent' anything more than one man's devotion to his (dead) wife. Amazing and touching as it is, it's not a 'typical' example of anything. But it is such an icon of India that it will probably have to stay.


 * The Tagore image truly is representative of the widest swath of Culture. This isn't a cultural, regional, or religious bias on my part. And Tagore in many ways is not part of the "Great Tradition", at least not originally. He was abused by one journal as a "pigeon-poet who sold his cooings in print for a rupee." If it's only a week before you have a proposed addition to the Culture section, then we should keep it as is for now - taj and Tagore - and end all of the useless bickering while we all look for a better tribal image and placement. In the meantime we can put out the word for people to suggest alternate images that are more representative of the tribal or minority demographic.


 * Regarding the new sections and ideas that I and others have mentioned - Wikipedia can be chaotic and messy while the work is being done. Different editors have different interests and backgrounds. While the construction is going on, there's alot of dust and mess. It isn't right to tell other editors to wait on their good ideas, just because it's going to get messy. I do hope we can, if not 'do business' together, at least keep a civil tone through it all. None of this is worth getting upset about, or being uncivil. Your 'brusque' tone has alienated way too many editors and makes it almost impossible for them to work with you, and vice versa. It really makes for alot of wasted time and effort.&#2384; Priyanath talk 15:45, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

Jim Corbett National Park
We had an edit conflict. I think I added all your edits to my copy. Sorry If I missed any. Thanks for your sharp copyediting. Its tough dealing with Inglish.-Marcus 07:32, 13 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Thank you for the big improvement to the lead, and throughout the article. With the mix of Americanese, Inglish, British English, European English, on WP it can be tough to figure out what to do sometimes. &#2384; Priyanath talk 16:43, 13 October 2007 (UTC)


 * Thank you for your involvement and for your kind comments. I hope, and look forward to, for your continued involvement in the editing and improvement process. With regards and good wishes, Havelok  17:05, 13 October 2007 (UTC)


 * Hi, I have rewritten the Jim Corbett National Park article and am planning to nominate it for GA after some checking and re-checking (for which I'm currently too tired/blind). It would be of help to me if you could read the article and tell me what more needs to be done to push it to to GA. Personally, I think this fascinating article has solid FA potential. With Regards, Havelok  02:21, 14 October 2007 (UTC)


 * I can check for old editions of Corbett's books but have no past experience in emailing organizations for assistance. If you could e-mail them and ask for some pictures of tigers in the reserve, Jim Corbett himself (while browsing Flickr I came across a bust of him in the reserve which will do admirably), a picture for the "ecotourism" section or some proper pictures of rivers and streams etc. then it would solve the most immediate of this article's weaknesses. With Regards, Havelok  22:33, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

Paramahansa Yogananda external link.
Why do you keep removing the external link I added to the Paramahansa Yogananda article explaining the Energization Exercises? I see no reason for this. It's a legitimate link, not a personal link as you suggested on the History page.71.63.18.205 21:38, 21 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Please read Wikipedia's policies on external link here: WP:EL. Relevant policies to your link include, but aren't limited to: "unverifiable research" (this site obviously does not meet WP:RS); ;"Links to Blogs"; "Advertising and conflicts of interest"; "Links mainly intended to promote a website"; and it's spam, per "Advertisements masquerading as articles" at Spam. &#2384; Priyanath talk 22:22, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

Kalidas image
Hi Priyanath, I posted on the talk page but also leaving a copy here.

England is not a FA article (I know this argument is used ad infitum) and I do not agree with putting Shakespeare picture in culture section either. Please, please, please - explain to me how does putting a mug shot of Tagore (or Shakespeare) adds to the value of the article. They are not famous for how they LOOKED but for their work. For example, I would rather have an image of a play written by Shakespeare than his picture. If you can convince me about this, I have no problem supporting using Tagore image.

Also, I do not understand why you have decided to oppose the image? You noted yourself that you would be happy with Recognition of Shakuntala earlier in discussion. Also, I will state that I have absolutely nothing against Tagore, having helped make that article reach its FA status. I just don't see the value of using just his image in this context. I sincerely hope we can resolve this issue amicably. Regards, --Blacksun 22:14, 21 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Thanks, I replied at Talk:India. Thanks also for helping to bring some civility and reason to the discussion. &#2384; Priyanath talk 22:57, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

SRI YUKTESWAR
Dear Priyanath, I am trying to follow the order of your questions. (1)I sincerely hope that those redlinked names get the due honour of an article each. (2) According to information from Arun Chandra Guha, a former Jugantar militant, Preonath did belong to one of those akharas. (3) The gymnasium run by Hrishikesh was indeed a part of the Priyodham; in a Police report, Karar has been described as a rich man (who financed the cause). (4) By 'formed' I meant 'founded'. (5) I have no further precision: in the given context, he seems to have been directly involved. Maybe, as in the case of several other revolutionaries, the sannyasi's garb helped him abscond. (6) I have used the variant of spelling (Arabinda Ghose) found in the Report; he was not yet known as Sri Aurobindo. (7) With the full name of the author of The Road Ahead, I could try to find out more about the authenticity of his information; very often, in the case of activities of a secret society, a later-day wisdom trends to take prophetic proportions, whereas nobody outside the immediate circle of initiated performers was supposed to have any knowledge of what was going on, especially in a scheme like the Hindu German Conspiracy. Wish you all the best.--BobClive 16:13, 22 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Thanks for your response and additional information. I'll be able to respond more later. &#2384; Priyanath talk 16:55, 22 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Are you one of his relatives ?--BobClive 08:24, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

India page (image file talk)
Priyanath, I think you ought to simply grit your teeth and stop dignifying Fowler's nitpicking with responses. He doesnt own the place there and we arent answerable to him. I've decided not to feed his nonsense anymore nor to take part in any of the WP:POINT and meaningless straw polls he conjures at the drop of a hat. It is a rank abuse of process imo, and we shouldnt be a part it. Thanks. Sarvagnya 16:17, 22 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Thanks - you're right. &#2384; Priyanath talk 16:52, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

Only Love
"Only love can take my place" -Paramahansa Yogananda

Nothing else matters. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Christina.ruiz (talk • contribs) 02:50, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

Remember Jim Corbett National Park ?
Thanks to our collective efforts the article made it to WP:GA. I thought that I should inform you that our efforts have been successful and we promoted the article to a higher level on the quality scale ! Havelock  датчанин  21:35, 20 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Congratulations! - It's definitely a very good article, and will hopefully promote the park. Thanks for following through (which I didn't). FYI, I did email two websites associated with the park for photos, but received no response. But it looks like some good photos were had after all. Good job. priyanath talk 21:51, 20 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Thank you for the kind words. You for stayed with the article and made a lot of major edits. That's what really matters. Hαvεlok   беседа   мансарда  01:20, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

Vegalitarian
I, Stig Harder, am the author of this article. I'm the founder of http://www.fashion.net and a vegan. I recently coined the word 'vegalitarian' to give the concept of non-speciesist egalitarianism a much needed word that can be used by the proponents of the merger of animal rights with human rights. I am in the process of establishing www.vegalitarian.com to further make all of the past and current efforts in this regard well known. I also am in contact with Ingrid Newkirk of PETA, Peter Singer, the Vegan Society, and the Vegetarian Society and could bring these people and organizations into this discussion if needed. You can reach me at harder (at) fashion (dot) net if needed. I would thoroughly appreciate if you would remove the tag suggesting the deletion of this article. Kind regards, Stig —Preceding unsigned comment added by Shousokutsuu (talk • contribs) 22:30, 20 November 2007 (UTC)
 * I'm sorry, but Vegalitarianism doesn't meet a most basic Wikipedia requirement for an article. It's a Neologism - you can learn Wikipedia policy on Neologisms here: WP:NEO. If you have Reliable Sources (see WP:RS) that show that this is a commonly used word, then you should add your feedback to the discussion being held here about deleting your article: Articles_for_deletion/Vegalitarianism. Any editor can opine about the many articles that are listed for deletion, so I suggest any further comments you make be placed at Articles_for_deletion/Vegalitarianism. I can't remove that template from the article page - the only way it can be removed is if the vote on the AfD page is to keep the article. priyanath talk 22:54, 20 November 2007 (UTC)
 * (moved from user page) You seem to be guarding the Gandhi page, yet you initiated the quest for deleting my article on Vegalitarianism; I really don't understand. -- Regards, Stig
 * Stig, you need to read up on some Wikipedia policies. Here is a good start:
 * The Five Pillars of Wikipedia
 * Our policies, guidelines, and simplified ruleset priyanath talk 16:01, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

Gandhi Page
As I said earlier up the Talk Page, if you think the name was wrongly changed, as for an editors assistance. I found PIGMAN helpful on another article. I myself don't know the answer or even have that strong a feeling one way or the other. Carol Moore 03:49, 26 November 2007 (UTC)User:Carolmooredc User talk:Carolmooredc
 * Thanks for the advice. I think I'll let it be for now, and see if other editors of the page have an opinion. priyanath talk 04:48, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

ArbCom
I have filed a case here, I just listed myself an Dbachmann as the involved parties, because I was unsure how to do it, if you would also like to be listed as an involved party and make a statement, please feel free to add your name and statement. futurebird 20:51, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

JSTOR
Hi. Thanks for the JSTOR links. I do not have access to JSTOR though. Is there any other way I can read the article? - Aksi_great (talk) 07:45, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

Requests for arbitration/Dbachmann
An Arbitration case in which you commented has been opened, and is located here. Please add any evidence you may wish the Arbitrators to consider to the evidence sub-page, Requests for arbitration/Dbachmann/Evidence. Please submit your evidence within one week, if possible. You may also contribute to the case on the workshop sub-page, Requests for arbitration/Dbachmann/Workshop.

On behalf of the Arbitration Committee, David Mestel(Talk) 19:22, 3 December 2007 (UTC)


 * I just wanted to take a moment to thank you for your voice of reason in this matter -- and for simply just taking the time to participate. Regards, deeceevoice (talk) 13:46, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

BAGHA JATIN
Dear Priyanath, I have created an article in the French Section; several technical problems (such as 'References', adding photos etc.) need to be resolved. Can you have a look at them ? Anticipated thanks and Season's Greetings.--BobClive (talk) 07:07, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

BAGHA JATIN
IT WILL BE KIND OF YOU TO SUGGEST ME SOMEONE WHO KNOWS FRENCH AND IS CLEVER ENOUGH WITH THE TECHNICAL APPROACH. GREETINGS. User:BobClive|BobClive]] (talk) 09:17, 23 December 2007 (UTC)--BobClive (talk) 09:18, 23 December 2007 (UTC)


 * I have requested [Rueben lys] to maintain the category you have suggested for Bagha Jatin (please see his Talk page). Season's greetings for 2008.--BobClive (talk) 07:32, 25 December 2007 (UTC)

Season's Greetings== ==

May this season bring you success, good times and happiness. Looking forward to working with you in the future. Hαvεlok  беседа   мансарда  07:19, 25 December 2007 (UTC)

Re:Bagha Jatin category
Hello Priyanath. Regarding your comments on Bob's user page,yes, I surmised as much that there was a misinterpretation somewhere. I couldn't figure out what the formatting problem was, but I have wikilinked the french article to the english article. Nonetheless, thanks for you comments. Season's greetings.rueben_lys (talk) 12:03, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

Possibly unfree Image:Lahirimahasaya.jpg
An image that you uploaded or altered, Image:Lahirimahasaya.jpg, has been listed at Possibly unfree images because its copyright status is disputed. If the image's copyright status cannot be verified, it may be deleted. You may find more information on the image description page. You are welcome to add comments to its entry at if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you. Shell babelfish 14:48, 6 January 2008 (UTC) --Shell babelfish 14:48, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

Indian religions
[cc to Bakasuprman and GourangaUK]

I know that the talk page at Indian religions is probably the largest in wikipedia, but I sincerely request your assistance in countering repeat reverts of AnishShah19 who claims that Jainism stretched back to the Indus Valley civilization. He concludes that the Vedic tradition was parallel to Jainism and sramana.

Just browse through the page in 10 minutes you'll get his line of discussion (Harappan rishabha seals, naked munis described in Vedas and the standing posture of some Indus valley seals ). I'm in dire need of support from co-religionists too (he too is one, but astray). Indian_Air_Force (IAF) (talk) 16:54, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

Samadhi (poem)
Another editor has added the "prod" template to the article Samadhi (poem), suggesting that it be deleted according to the proposed deletion process. All contributions are appreciated, but the editor doesn't believe it satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and has explained why in the article (see also What Wikipedia is not and Notability). Please either work to improve the article if the topic is worthy of inclusion in Wikipedia or discuss the relevant issues at its talk page. If you remove the prod template, the article will not be deleted, but note that it may still be sent to Articles for deletion, where it may be deleted if consensus to delete is reached. BJBot (talk) 12:59, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

Good work!
At the Paramahansa Yogananda‎ article... ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 00:14, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

Western Chalukya architecture
Thanks for the support.Dineshkannambadi (talk) 21:34, 20 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Thanks for the encouragement.Dineshkannambadi (talk) 15:01, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

RfA
I am not one for sending round pretty pictures, but after my recent RfA, which passed 68/1/7, I am now relaxed and this is to thank you for your support. I will take on board all the comments made and look forward to wielding the mop with alacrity. Or two lacrities. -- Rodhullandemu  (Talk) 21:24, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

Image:Lahirimahasaya.jpg listed for deletion
An image or media file that you uploaded or altered, Image:Lahirimahasaya.jpg, has been listed at Images and media for deletion. Please see the to see why this is (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry), if you are interested in it not being deleted. Nv8200p talk 21:28, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

links
You have removed links to my site The God light, you have stated that I have been spamming. i had a link on the Gandhi article that you removed. the link was to external sites. Now i have a web page that had audio of Gandhi talking, which I thought people would listen to. My site does not make money it is only interested in talking about spiritual people like Gandhi. Looking at other links other people have done similar. i could understand if I was selling hundreds of books about Gandhi, but i am not, I was merley adding some more information, in the part of wikipedia that I thought i could ammend. If I had no extra information on my site on anyone I would not put a link. If you can understand me, I felt i was just adding to wikipedia, not spamming. So I would be glad if you looked at what you have done again as all I was trying to show on any links were video or audio clips that was not shown on wikipedia. God Bless —Preceding unsigned comment added by Leonjbrm (talk • contribs) 22:19, 5 February 2008 (UTC)


 * It's a conflict of interest to add links to your own website to Wikipedia articles. EL explains what you should do instead: go to the talk page of the article and ask someone to add the link for you. If it's really relevant to the article, someone will add it. I don't think you're going to have much luck with having other editors add links to your website on Wikipedia, though, and  editors will remove any links that you yourself add to articles. ~ priyanath talk 22:59, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

Kuru family tree
Thanks very much for your comments. Imc (talk) 09:28, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

Request
Could you take a look at this? Thanks. Relata refero (talk) 22:54, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

Historical development of Ganesha
PLease participate in the discussion at Talk:Historical development of Ganesha about the question should the article Historical development of Ganesha be retained or deleted. Thanks. --Redtigerxyz (talk) 12:10, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

Bodhgaya Image
Hey,

I was just wondering if anything could be done about User:Adam.J.W.C.. He has put the image on Uncyclopedia under the caption "India's famous super hero "Spiderman" selling his ass for butt sex, 50c a go"  Nikkul (talk) 04:03, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

Congratulation
And now, please try to lift the article to featured status :) Regards.--Dwaipayan (talk) 11:16, 27 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Thanks, sometime I would like to do just that, but will need some help :) ~ priyanath talk 16:33, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

Ramakrishna

 * I have now significantly shortened the section on the positive reception of Kali's Child. Please let me know if you still feel that the article gives undue weight to this topic. &mdash; goethean &#2384; 17:14, 23 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Thank you for the notice. I'll give other editors a chance before I get back into it in a couple of days. I've found that strictly one-on-one edit disputes often aren't very productive (for the article itself, and for my own time). I have some other things I need to do in the meantime (other articles, and sit in the sun in my garden!). ~ priyanath talk 19:23, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

Crowley/Krishna debate

 * Glad to see that we (by which I mean all of the editors involved) are finally beginning to reach a peaceful compromise on the subject, as opposed to the potential edit wars and blocks I had feared. -- Shruti14 t c s 05:53, 27 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Yes, it's good to see an outbreak of goodwill and compromise! ~ priyanath talk 19:56, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

Image copyright problem with Image:Prayerflags.png
Thank you for uploading Image:Prayerflags.png. However, it currently is missing information on its copyright status. Wikipedia takes copyright very seriously. It may be deleted soon, unless we can determine the license and the source of the image. If you know this information, then you can add a copyright tag to the image description page.

If you have any questions, please feel free to ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thanks again for your cooperation. NOTE: once you correct this, please remove the tag from the image's page. STBotI (talk) 05:41, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

Wow.
Wow. Just wow. Please educate yourself. &mdash; goethean &#2384; 00:07, 2 April 2008 (UTC)
 * So, steamy fiction is 'Contemporary Scholarship' in your POV&mdash;that explains a great deal. So does this analogy that is sometimes attributed to Sri Ramakrishna (Warning: Introspection Ahead):
 * "When a pickpocket sees a saint, all he sees are the saint's pockets." ~ priyanath talk 19:12, 2 April 2008 (UTC)
 * The same could just as easily be said of religious conservatives who paint 19th century tantrics in their own image. &mdash; goethean &#2384; 21:14, 2 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Psychoanalysis, which is still considered pseudoscience by many, has nothing to do with tantra. Seeing er, 'pockets' everywhere you look is a form of spiritual and cultural reductionism that is itself conservative. ~ priyanath talk 00:30, 4 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Deconstruction and New Criticism, for example, also have nothing to do with tantra, and are also not science. This has no bearing on the validity of their use in interpreting texts. &mdash; goethean &#2384; 20:07, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

SRK biblio
Please feel free to contribute to this page: User:Goethean/SRKbiblio &mdash; goethean &#2384; 15:34, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

Sri Yukteswar Giri
Hi -- do you know if he actually mentions precession when he talks about the dual, or is this just the Binary Institute trying to get publicity in this article and Holy Science?Doug Weller (talk) 19:14, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

You vote is needed
Priyananthji, You were recently contributing to articles that are in the scope of the new project WP:KRISHNA, I thought you may want to check the proposal of merger and cast your vote in relation of the additional section to article Krishna. Thanks. -- Wikidās-ॐ 14:41, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

Gandhi
Hey,

There's a discussion going on about the name on the Gandhi page. Please weigh in here. Thanks Nikkul (talk) 01:46, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

WikiProject India Newsletter June 2008
This newsletter is automatically delivered by TinucherianBot (talk) 06:42, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

Re: Keshub Chunder Sen
Thanks for the new photo. The anon IPs, and several single purpose accounts, are all the same person(s). They are strangely obsessed with the photo. They claim that the photo is fake, does not represent the subject etc. etc. Of course, you can see from your photo the resemblance between that and the disputed photo.

Next, they claim that the photo is (amazingly!!) under copyright!! It is quite clear that the photo is pre 1882, and possibly much earlier. By any standards, it is in public domain. (here is a double standard by the anons ... they claim in this point that this is a studio portrait of the subject).

Anyway, I don't understand their point of obsession with the photo, and don't care much. They do however put forward a lot of crap about Banglapedia being pro-Bangladeshi pov etc. etc. (which is even more surprising ... I don't see any link between this delusion and their hatred of the photo :) ).

So, that's the status quo. Please keep an eye on the article if you can. Thanks. --Ragib (talk) 05:27, 29 June 2008 (UTC)


 * Dear Priyanath. Thanks for the new image. with the uploading of this image I surmise the controversy shall be resolved. It was Ragib's insistence on using the other dubious and/or forged image which had raised passions. 69.197.132.98 (talk) 08:36, 29 June 2008 (UTC)


 * Thanks, but both photos are equally acceptable and both add to the article. The first is obviously Keshub Chunder Sen, based on comparison to the photo I uploaded and other photos I've seen of him. If you believe it is not him, then you need to find a WP:RS (Reliable Source) proving your strong WP:POV Point Of View that it's a forgery. If you believe it's a copyright problem, then you should take it to Copyright problems, though I believe you already did that and the photo was accepted. ~ priyanath talk 15:50, 29 June 2008 (UTC)


 * Dear Priyanath, This is a serious issue, but unfortunately a gang of editors is trivialising it. The image uploaded by Ragib is a "calendar art" portrait based on a painting hanging in a well known museum in India. The fact that this dubious portrait is "calendar art" is admitted by Ragib in previous discussion. In the authentic portrait Mr.Sen is very "brown". However, Ragib's version has blancoed (whitened) Mr.Sen - and is hence not reliable or a "fair depiction" (well actually it is a "fair" depiction, but in an un-RS way). All the Historical literature describes Mr.Sen as "swarthy", "nut brown" etc. The acceptable WP:RS Postage Stamp of Mr.Sen (based on the museum portrait) issued by India Government faithfully depicts Sen as "brown". I believe similar disputes regularly occur in Christian wiki articles over whether Jesus Christ was a white or brown or black etc. I did not discuss this previously and neither was the "photo" accepted (please see the archived discussion). Am CC'ing this to the Talk of concerned article also, since edit warring is in progress.69.197.132.98 (talk) 19:00, 29 June 2008 (UTC)

Thanks a lot for your message. This user is actually stalking me, as I can see from my website logs. He is using various proxies once again to mask his trails. I am keeping an eye on him for my safety. In the mean time, please keep the article on your watchlist. Thanks. --Ragib (talk) 19:20, 30 June 2008 (UTC)